Saving Private Ryan’s D-Day: What Spielberg Got Right vs. Invented Skip to content ← Back to the front page Saving Private Ryan drew from real D-Day carnage and a genuine U.S. Army policy to retrieve...

[View Article at Source]America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Randall Bock John Tierney challenges media-driven panic with a reporters eye for evidence, trends, and proportion. From willpower research

[View Article at Source]Truth Be Told with Booker Scott On Independence Day weekend, Americans face a choice between dependency and responsibility. As inflation, low turnout, and political disconnect

CNN host Abby Phillip, a radical liberal, has been working hard to offer a laudable defense for democratic socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his demand for residents to set their air conditioning

A Jalisco-based vigilante, who has come to be known as Mexican Batman, is now being pursued by local law enforcement officers for taping alleged criminals to poles, seemingly doing the job of fighting

CNN panelist Tara Setmayer, a raging liberal, went on a tirade during a heated discussion on July 1, 2026, concerning the issue of birthright citizenship, claiming that Republican arguments about China

Imagine the ruckus if a modern US naval captain refused to bring his nuclear-powered warship back into port. How would the president react? It is unlikely he would encourage the navies of foreign nations to actively attempt to apprehend the wayward vessel, but such a scenario became the reality of President Sam Houston of Texas in the spring of 1843.The Disobedient Texan NavyUS Brig Niagara. Photograph by Lance Woodworth, 2009. Source: Wikimedia CommonsHouston was not a happy man in spring 1843. Three times in the past year Mexican armies had invaded Texas and twice occupied San Antonio. Though repulsed, a retaliatory expedition to the Rio Grande turned into a gross act of stupidity when some militiamen chose to disobey orders and carry the war into Mexico.This force was crushed, the survivors imprisoned, and forced to draw lots, witnessed the cruel slaughter of their comrades in the face of Mexican firing squads. On top of all this, however, Houston was facing yet another act of gross insubordination from the Republics navy. Its commander, the fiery Captain Edwin Moore, refused presidential orders to return to Galveston, and instead announced his intention to proceed to sea and under the flag of Texasin a direct violation oforders, and cruise upon the high seas with armed vessels, contrary to the laws of this Republic (Houston, p. 338-340).With his own navy flaunting his presidential authority, Houston made the drastic decision to seek the aid of foreign nations in an attempt to drive Moore from the high seas. Texass navy had served its purpose, Houston argued, and he was determined to sell the vessels off at auction. The money would help restore Texass empty treasury, but with the fleet gone wrong, Houstons decision to enlist foreign aid seemed justified. If the wayward Moore was allowed to carry on his merry way, Houston feared Texas must suffer herself to become the object of contempt, or the victim, of insubordination and anarchy (Houston, p. 338-340). How did it come to this?Houstons FrustrationsThe Dutch Schooner Oosterschelde. Photograph by VollwertBIT, 2005. Source: Wikimedia CommonsHouston was no sailor and saw in the Texas Navy far more hassle than benefit. Emerging during the revolutionary struggle of 1835-36, the first Texas navy boasted four ships, schooners and brigs, whose mission was ostensibly to guard Texass rivers and coasts, and if possible, harass Mexican shipping in the Gulf. Cost and combat would take a toll on these modest vessels. Almost a year to the day since the victory at San Jacinto, the Texian flagship, Independence, a two-masted schooner with six guns, including a Mexican piece taken at San Jacinto, was assailed by two Mexican vessels near the mouth of the Brazos River.Outnumbered and unable to bring her full broadside to bear, Independence struck her colors. Imprisonment awaited her crew and the vessel entered Mexican service. By May 1837, Houston was urging the Texan Congress to sell what remained of the flotilla. The cost of maintaining these vessels, which were not strong enough even to guard Texass coasts, was too great a financial burden to bear for the infant republic. They were duly sold at auction and thus ended the first incarnation of the Texan navy. A second Texan navy would soon materialize.The reason behind this resurrection was the simple transfer of power. Houston was out and Mirabeau B. Lamar was in. In terms of policy the two men could not have been more different. Houston believed in consolidating what the Texians held, being fiscally responsible, and not involving themselves in expansionistic adventures. Most of all, he sought to leave Mexico alone. Lamar had other ideas.The Second Navy of TexasMirabeau B. Lamar monument in front of the Fort Bend County Court House, Richmond, Texas. Statue by Sidney Waugh, 1936. Source: Wikimedia CommonsTo the Georgian-born Lamar, Texas had to expand as far afield as Santa Fe. Moreover, within its own confines, Indigenous peoples, suspect in their loyalties, had to be removed, lest they threaten the independence that had been won in 1836. Lamar therefore embarked on several Indian wars during his time in office to the detriment of the Texan republic. Worse was to come when Lamar pursued an active policy of aggression against Mexico.Separatist movements in several Mexican states, most notably the recently declared Republic of the Yucatan, had to be supported by the Texians. The most efficient means of supporting the Yucatecans, Lamar believed, was from the waters of the Gulf. Lamar secured contracts with American shipyards to build brigs and sloops of war and engaged the services of Edwin Moore, a former US naval officer, to command Lamars small navy.This navy, which emerged from the shipyards throughout late 1839 and early 1840, was a modest flotilla like its predecessor, but it would spend more time outside of Texas waters than within them. Operating from islands off the Yucatan coast, and utilizing the naval facilities of New Orleans, Moores ships engaged in a variety of tasks, including charting, suppressing smugglers, delivering armaments, and seizing prizes.Edwin Moore in his naval uniform. Photograph by Billy Hathorn, 2008. Source: Wikimedia CommonsMoores primary duty was to maintain a passive presence in the Gulf. The Yucatecan government offered pay for the upkeep of the Texan fleet, so long as they came to defend the Yucatan against the Mexican navy. This deal was readily accepted by Lamar, but upon Houstons return to office in December 1841, things changed once again. Houston saw in the provocative activities of the navy nothing less than an impending disaster. One that came in 1842 when Mexican armies invaded Texas three times.In this perilous situation, Houston was forced to make use of Moores vessels, tasking the commodore with a blockade of the Mexican coast from Tabasco to Matamoros. Moores fleet returned to the Yucatan, operating from its ports even after Houston recalled them. When the threat of invasion at last waned, Houston once again planned to dismantle Texass troublesome navy.From his viewpoint, the navy was a liability whose actions had provoked a serious military response from Mexico. Aiding the cause of the Yucatecans was in Houstons mind a foolish adventure, for the Yucatecans were in no real position to support the Texians. Moreover, conditions aboard ships were deplorable. The men, from average sailor to Moore himself, had not been paid in years. Yet when Moore received Houstons orders early in 1843 to return his ships to Galveston for the express purpose of their being sold at auction, the commodore refused outright.Professional security played a part in this decision, but so did Moores resentment of Houstons orders. Houston had never appreciated the navy to begin with and saw in it only a financial burden beyond the Republics abilities to meet. Moore was determined that the second Texan navy would not suffer the fate of the first.Texan Sloop of War, Austin. Source: Wikimedia CommonsSuch was his determination that he kept his ships from Texian ports for months throughout the first half of 1843, actively engaging Mexican shipping in the meantime. Such outright disobedience was treason in Houstons eyes, for Texass foreign policy was now effectively being shaped by the broadsides of a rogue sailor in charge of a fleet operating without any form of political oversight.Moore carried on his war against the Mexican navy from New Orleans, bringing Mexican naval forces to battle on two occasions in April and May 1843. On both occasions, from his flagship, Austin, Moore gained the better of superior Mexican forces. He did so while he and his men were openly labeled as pirates by Houston.To answer this charge, and because of the need to resupply his ships, Moore at last returned to Galveston on July 14, 1843. This return effectively ended the tumultuous second life of the navy of Texas.Moore vs HoustonTo the People of Texas by Edwin Moore, 1843. Source: Texas State LibraryEdwin Moore was inflamed to write a passionate defense of his actions by the charges leveled against him by Houston. Declared a pirate, the very worst insult to be cast upon a naval officer, Moore took to his pen, and produced a 200-page defense of his operations, entitled To the People of Texas. I have been accused of the most heinous crimes known to the laws of this or any country, he declared, by a man who was openly contemptuous of the navy that had so long served Texas. It was not for Houston to stand in judgement of him, Moore asserted, but to the Texians themselves, to whom Moore addressed himself and confidently look for justice at their hands (Moore, p. 4).The people of Texas absolved Moore of the charges of piracy, and he was allowed to remain in the navy, as it was. But Houston had the last say on the matter. The navy would never go out again. It was far too great a risk and serves to illustrate the larger problem of command and control inherent in the Republic of Texas.The armed forces of a nation must be subordinated to the civilian authorities appointed over them. In Texas, however, that authority could easily be challenged if the will of the chief executive stood contrary to the men themselves. Sam Houston was made painfully aware of this several times during his tumultuous second term as president, both on land and sea.Portrait of Sam Houston, 1836. Source: Tennessee Historical SocietyWanting to maintain a peaceful posture towards the Mexicans, Houstons restraint in times of war stood in contrast to the desires of many within his own government, and armed forces in the field. Following the repulse of the Mexican invasions in 1842, Houston was forced to send an expedition to the Rio Grande to show the flag. But in disobedience of orders, a substantial portion of the men decided to invade Mexico, much to their detriment.On the high seas things were far worse. Houston was powerless to enforce his orders upon a wayward Moore whose own views stood more in line with those of Lamar and allowed them to disobey the orders of his nominal commander-in-chief. Through the months of April and May 1843, Moore was actively waging war upon Mexico outside any real authority save his own. Contemptuous of the charges of piracy levelled against him by Houston, Moore returned and was vindicated. But the precedent he had set could not be replicated for the damage it would do to Texas could well have been irreparable.Grounded at last, the last vessels of the Texian navy were sold off until only the Austin remained. Taken into the US navy after Texass annexation, it proved to be far too leaky a vessel to do anything more than serve as a receiving ship off the coast of Florida. It proved an inauspicious end to an inauspicious organization.SourcesThe Writings of Sam Houston 1813-1863. Volume III December 20,1822-January 31, 1844, eds Amelia W. Williams and Eugene C. Barker. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1940).Moore, Edwin. To the People of Texas (1843: repub: University Park, TX, Southern Methodist University Press, 2011).

From 1939 to 1945, World War II raged in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Ocean. Japan had been waging a war of aggression in Asia since 1937 and was infamous for atrocities committed against civilians. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, the Allied PowersBritain, the United States, and the Soviet Unionagreed that only unconditional surrender of the Axis PowersGermany, Italy, and Japanwould be accepted. This set the stage for true investigation and punishment of those who led the Axis Powers. What would be done about Japanese leaders who committed war crimes against Allied troops and civilians? Would there be justice?Setting the Stage: The Sino-Japanese WarA poster showing Japanese aggression in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1937. Source: Hoover InstitutionJapan had been the dominant power in Asia and the Pacific since its upset victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05). Over the next five years, Japan took the Korean peninsula as a colony and looked to expand further. No longer fearful of the Soviet Union, Japan began seizing parts of Manchuria (northeastern China) in September 1931 under the supposed need to protect Japanese assets in the region. After a brief period of relative calm, Japan made another invasion to seize more Chinese territory in July 1937. This began the Second Sino-Japanese War and resulted in horrific casualties.Observers were horrified by Japanese atrocities committed against civilians and captured Chinese soldiers. Most infamous was the Nanking Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanjing, which saw the violent execution of up to 300,000 civilians in the Chinese city of Nanking in December 1937. Public opinion swung firmly against Japan, which was seen as a barbaric aggressor. The US, Britain, and the Netherlands began embargoing trade with Japan to apply economic pressure on the country to end its war in China. Instead, Japan looked for ways to access needed resources without having to buy them.Setting the Stage: Japanese ImperialismA photograph of Japanese troops mounting an offensive against Soviet troops in Mongolia in 1939 in an undeclared border war. Source: The National WWII Museum New OrleansJapan chose to expand its war in Asia to access resources that had been cut off by Western trade embargoes. In 1939, Japan moved north and west into Mongolia, prompting a conflict with the adjacent Soviet Union. This undeclared border war lasted for about four months. It resulted in an unexpected defeat for Japan, with the Soviets using innovative armored tactics that were much more effective than Russian performance in the previous Russo-Japanese War. Then, World War II erupted in Europe, and France was quicklyand unexpectedlyconquered by Nazi Germany.This left Frances colonies in Southeast Asia, collectively known as French Indochina, effectively undefended. As an Axis Power allied with Nazi Germany, Japan was able to make a (coerced) agreement with Nazi-installed Vichy France and occupy those colonies. Japan referred to its colonized territory, from Manchuria down to Thailand, as its Greater East Co-Prosperity Sphere. However, there was little prosperity for the occupied territories, which faced harsh treatment and a stripping of resources to be sent back to Japan.1941-42: Japanese Aggression Against US and UKA sketch of the infamous Bataan Death March in the Philippines in 1942 by American survivor Ben Steele. Source: Southern Illinois University (SIU)World War II erupted in the Pacific Ocean in December 1941 when Japan launched a massive offensive against American, British, and Dutch territories. The December 7 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor US naval base in Hawaii brought the United States into World War II, and the December 8 Japanese attack on Singapore (followed by an attack on Hong Kong) brought Britain into the Pacific conflict as well. Further south, the Japanese invaded the Dutch East Indies, today known as Indonesia. Germany and Italy, already at war with Britain and having defeated the Dutch in Europe, swiftly declared war on the United States, creating a true globe-spanning war.Initial Japanese victories quickly led to atrocities against British and American troops, as well as those nations colonial allies. British troops, many of whom were taken prisoner during the surrenders of Singapore and Hong Kong, were treated terribly, both due to vicious guards and the poor conditions of jungle prison camps. American troops suffered the deadly Bataan Death March in the spring of 1942 after the Japanese capture of the Philippines, which was a US colony. The terrible treatment inflicted on British, American, and Allied soldiers by the Japanese quickly solidified public support for a war until unconditional surrender.1943: Island Hopping and Tehran ConferenceA photo of US casualties on the beach during the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943, the first major battle in the island hopping campaign. Source: Naval History and Heritage CommandUnfortunately, there was little immediate justice for the perpetrators of the Rape of Nanking, bombers of Pearl Harbor, capturers of Singapore and Hong Kong, and brutal guards of the Bataan Death March. Until the summer of 1942, Japan was on the offensive and taking Allied territory. However, the Battle of Midway in June 1942 turned the tide of war as the Allies, especially the United States, had the industrial might to replace losses that the Japanese could not come close to matching. After Midway, Japan was pushed back closer and closer to its home islands.The Allied strategy to end the war more quickly than expected was island hopping. While Japan prepared to defend almost all the islands it had captured, the United States only retook the islands needed for air and naval bases to get closer to Japan. The first major battle of the island hopping campaign was the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943. Japan was unable to stop the US from building bases closer and closer to the home islands, eventually resulting in constant air raids on Japanese cities by the spring of 1945. Grimly, Japan prepared for the inevitable invasion of the home islands, which could cause over a million casualties.1945: Japan Surrenders UnconditionallyUS President Harry S. Truman reads the August 14, 1945 Japanese agreement to unconditional surrender. Source: National Archives USHoping to avoid the estimated one million casualties, the United States chose to drop its secret super-weapon, the atomic bomb, on Japan to encourage its unconditional surrender. The Battle of Okinawa four months before had been so bloody that it convinced the Allies that most Japanese would fight to the death. On August 6, 1945, the Little Boy atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima, Japan by a B-29 bomber. The single explosion destroyed about five square miles of the city, shocking the globe.Two days later, honoring its agreement from the Tehran Conference in late 1943, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Immediately, a massive invasion took place across Mongolia and Manchuria, pitting experienced Soviet troops victorious from the long war against the Nazis against the surprised Japanese Kwantung Army. After Japan gave no response to the first atomic bomb, a second bomb was dropped days later on the city of Nagasaki. The two atomic bombs, combined with the new Soviet-Japanese War and swift Soviet advancements, finally convinced Japan to surrender unconditionally on August 15, 1945.The International Military Tribunal for the Far EastA photograph of the court staff and judges (top row in front of flags of Allied nations, wearing dark robes) at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Source: United States ArmyPlans to punish Japanese leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity had begun at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945. A precedent had been set by charging Nazi war criminals, especially in regard to the Holocaust, which had begun in October 1945 with the International Military Tribunal (IMT)colloquially known as the Nuremberg Trials. On December 26, 1945, the Moscow Conference set the legal basis for creating the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. It would begin its work in April 1946, putting on trial Japanese generals and political figures who had committed war crimes.Eleven Allied nations provided judges at the IMT Far East trials, which were held in Tokyo. Prosecution was sometimes difficult, as the Japanese had tried to destroy evidence of war crimes. US General Douglas MacArthur, in charge of the Allied occupation of Japan, decreed that the IMT Far East proceedings would work similarly to those held in Germany. Three floors were used at the former headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army, which was by necessity as much of Tokyo had been destroyed by bombing. On May 3, 1946, the prosecutors began their arguments.Leaders Punished at the Tokyo War Crimes TrialsA portrait of former Japanese prime minister Koki Hirota, who was executed in 1948 for Japans atrocities committed in the Second Sino-Japanese War. Source: National Portrait Gallery, Washington DCA total of twenty-eight defendants were tried in the initial Tokyo Trial, with later trials prosecuting defendants of lower rank and status. Some alleged Japanese war criminals were tried, with varying degrees of formality, in the nations they had been occupying, especially China. After the initial Tokyo Trial, Allied nations tried suspected war criminals individually, with the Netherlands, United States, and China trying the most defendants. In total, some 5,500 Japanese were tried by the Allies, with 510 sentenced to death.A photograph of former Japanese prime minister Hideki Tojo (center, with headphones) at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Source: Australian Institute of International AffairsThe most prominent leaders tried were two prime ministers: Hideki Tojo, who had initiated the massive offensive in December 1941, and Koki Hirota, who had pursued a war of aggression against China in the 1930s. Tojo and Hirota were both sentenced to death, along with four generals: Kenji Doihara, who fought in China; Seishiro Itagaki, Minister of War in the late 1930s; Heitaro Kimura, who fought in Burma; and Akira Muto, who was implicated in the Rape of Nanking and the Manila Massacre of 1945 as the United States retook the Philippines. These defendants were all executed by hanging.Leaders Who (Allegedly) Escaped Justice at the TrialsA photograph of Emperor Hirohito of Japan (on the white horse) in 1945, who was not charged with any crimes by the IMT. Source: PBSUnlike the Holocaust in Europe, which was intricately planned by the Nazis, many Japanese war crimes were relatively unplanned. This made it difficult after the war to accurately assign blame. Some Japanese generals may have been falsely accused of encouraging brutal behavior toward civilians, while some may have done so and escaped being implicated. Some intended prosecutions failed due to lack of evidence. Many lower-level officers escaped prosecution due to practicality: there was not enough time or money to put that many men on trial.While many small fish allegedly escaped Allied prosecution for war crimes, so did the (alleged) biggest fish of all: Emperor Hirohito. The Japanese emperor, officially the ruler of imperial Japan, was not prosecuted in the Tokyo Trials or any subsequent tribunals, much to the consternation of many Americans. Hirohito was not prosecuted primarily due to his importance in maintaining a peaceful occupation of Japan. If the Allies deposed Hirohito, civilians might resist in anger. Additionally, it is debatable how much Hirohito himself knew about, or condoned, Japanese war crimes. Although his office certainly signed off on such actions, it is unknown to what degree the emperor himself was aware.Controversy: Unit 731 PardonsAn undated photograph of members of Unit 731, Japans infamous bioweapons research unit that committed atrocities against civilians. Source: Pacific Atrocities EducationSome Japanese war criminals escaped prosecution because they had valuable information that was desirable to the Allies. This dealt with chemical and biological warfare, which had been tested by the infamous Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army. Similar to the Nazis at concentration camps in Europe, Unit 731 performed human experiments on captured civilians and Allied personnel. The data from these experiments were useful to the United States, which was interested in its own bioweapons program.In exchange for avoiding prosecution (and not being turned over to the Soviet Union), General Shiro Ishii provided information on bioweapons and their effects to the United States. Ishii later returned to Japan and passed away in 1959 as a free man. Other members of Unit 731 were also granted immunity, though the US did prosecute some Japanese for human experimentation, including vivisection (dissection while alive). Similarly, some Nazis with alleged links to the Holocaust also escaped prosecution due to their ability to assist the US with technical research through Operation Paperclip.Aftermath: Demilitarized JapanA map of Japanese military forces in August 1945, which were demobilized and dissolved after the surrender of Japan. Source: United States ArmyThe Tokyo Trials helped eliminate Japans wartime leadership and remove the possibility of a resurgence of nationalism. This pacified the nation enough for occupation and demilitarization to occur. While both Germany and Japan were demilitarized after World War II, Japan largely retained this status, which was enshrined in its post-war constitution. The difference was mostly due to the Cold War: the Soviet Union was far more focused on Europe, making a re-armed Germany a valuable ally. Japan was not seen as a valuable buffer against Soviet expansion.Although the formal American occupation of Japan ended in 1952, it took 70 more years for Japan to begin looking beyond maintaining only a strictly defensive military. This recent shift is likely related to the rapid growth of Chinas military power, coupled with continued nuclear threats posed by North Korea and the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a staunch American ally, Japan is likely to be a secondary target in any US-China or US-North Korea military conflict. However, aggressors in any potential future war should look to Nuremberg and Tokyo and recognize that, when the war is over, sometimes justice prevails.